NAFH National Bank v. Aristizabal
117 So. 3d 900
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Agreed final foreclosure judgment entered February 25, 2010 under a settlement; appellees to follow a payment schedule.
- Appellees defaulted; bank moved to schedule foreclosure sale.
- December 2011 appellees moved to vacate under Rule 1.540(b)(2)-(3), alleging fraud due to the copy of the note differing from the original.
- Trial court denied the Rule 1.540(b) motion; sale scheduled, bankruptcy filings by appellees interrupted and rescheduled the sale, which occurred August 21, 2012.
- August 31, 2012 appellees objected and moved to vacate, claiming fraud and unconscionability; trial court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August 31, 2012 Rule 1.540(b) motion was timely | Appellees argue timely under one-year limit | Bank argues untimely under one-year rule | Untimely; circuit court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the fraud alleged qualifies as fraud upon the court (extrinsic) under Rule 1.540(b) | Note and settlement fraud alleged constitute fraud on the court | Fraud alleged is intrinsic, not extrinsic | Fraud alleged was intrinsic; not within the fraud-on-the-court exception |
| Whether the motion satisfied the particularity requirement for fraud claims | Fraud allegations were sufficient to vacate the judgment | General allegations insufficient under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.120(b) | Motion failed to specify fraud with particularity; additional ground to reverse |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbor Cmtys., LLC v. Jerue, 81 So.3d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (final judgment subject to Rule 1.540 relief limited by jurisdiction)
- Bank One, N.A. v. Batronie, 884 So.2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (fraud-on-the-court exception is narrow)
- Epicor Software Corp. v. Coopers & Clarke, Inc., 928 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (timeliness matters for Rule 1.540(b) relief)
- DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla.1984) (extrinsic fraud involves prevention of participation in the action)
- Parker v. Parker, 950 So.2d 388 (Fla.2007) (extrinsic fraud defined by prevention of the opponent's participation)
- Alexander v. First Nat'l Bank of Titusville, 275 So.2d 272 (Fla.4th DCA 1973) (policy favoring termination of litigation narrows fraud-on-the-court scope)
- Freemon v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 46 So.3d 1202 (Fla.4th DCA 2010) (fraud claims must be stated with particularity)
- Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So.2d 579 (Fla.4th DCA 1994) (particularity required in averments of fraud or mistake)
- Vilvar v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas, 83 So.3d 853 (Fla.4th DCA 2011) (general allegations of fraud insufficient)
- DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla.1984) (intrinsic vs extrinsic fraud distinctions)